Congressional Record S. 18545-47- Conserving Base Acreages

1 November 19, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE S 1S545
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, be­cause
of the fact that a time limitation
has been agreed to I will keep my re­marks
short.
Soon after the election, Jim Stephens
of Dutton, Mont., Bob Brastrup of Great
Falls, Charles Smith, of Chester, Joe A.
Renders, of Great Falls, Jack Gunderson,
of Power Montana and others, came back
to Washington seeking to find a solu­tion
for the adjustment to Montana's
conservancy base In agriculture--that Is
nonplanted acres. The Governor of Mon­tana
also wrote to me as well as the
State Department of Agriculture and
many Interested Montana farmers and
ranchers.
While here In Washington, these gen­tlemen
met with officials at the Depart­ment
of Agriculture but received no sat­isfaction
as a result. It was hoped that
some assurances would be obtainable
prior to the vote on the conference re­port,
but this could not be given to the
above named Montanans who sought
such assurances.
The pending bill, in their judgment,
provides no production restraints. It is
thought that within the conference re­port
is the possibility of a staggering
overproduction of grain crops In the next
3 or 4 years. The present conservancy
base adjustment for all other Western
States except Montana will be one of the
principal contributors to this problem.
I have also received a letter from an
old friend, Jim Stephens, who reiterated
the group's desire to get the Montana
grain farmers on an equitable basis in
"this business of producing grain."
I am also in receipt of a letter from
Mr. Robert Brastrup, executive secre­tary
of the Montana Wheat Research &
Marketing Committee and I ask unani­mous
consent that it and a reply from
J . A. Asleson be incorporated at this
point in the RECORD and also a letter from
the honorable Jack Gunderson as well as
a letter which I sent to Secretary of Agri­culture,
Clifford M. Hardin on November
14 along with some enclosures and the
reply I received from Mr. Hardin on No­vember
18, 1970.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MONTANA WHEAT RESEARCH &
MARKETING COMMITTEE,
Great Falls, Mont., November 16, 1970.
Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: Enclosed Is a
statistical report that ts a correction ot the
ortgtnal material which you received con­cerning
conserving base acres. You will nottce
that the percentages In the right hand
column are changed slightly. Thts Is a down­ward
adjustment In most cases due to our
access to correct figures.
Also enclosed Is a letter !rom the Director
of the Agricultural Experiment Station at
MSU, Dr. J. A. Asleson. He Indicates that the
Experiment Station Is recognizing the alter­nate
crop fallow method of production may
not be the best for Montana In the long run.
we are sorry we did not have this Informa­tion
when we visited with you last week.
Thank you for your efforts. We are sure
that they will show results.
Yours very truly,
RoBERT BRASTRUP • .
Executive Secretary.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
Bozeman, Mont., November 6, 1970.
Mr. ROBERT BRASTRuP,
Executive Secretary.
Research and Marketing Committee,
Great Falls, Mont.
DEAR BoB: A question has been raised as
to the need for a downward adjustment of
Montana's conserving acreage base. The
method o! alternate crop-fallow production
widely used In Montana results In about
hal! of the gratn land not being cropped
each year. There Is some feeling that there
Is no alternative to the crop-fallow system,
therefore the high conocrving base creates no
real hardship. I should !Ike to reply to this
argument using research results of the Mon­tana
AgrtcuHural Experiment Station.
Long-term research has shown that yields
tor two years from contlnuou•ly cropped
land are usually 25-75% greater than the
single yield In two years from alternate crop­fallow
land. Cost of producllon could be
reduced by adopting systems of continuous
or Intermittent cropping In !leu of the crop­fallow
system In much of Montana, especially
areas having over 14 Inches of precipitation,
or with highly desirable precipitation pat­terns.
Research has provided Improved weed con­trol,
production practices, fert!lizer usage
and Improved varieties. When these are com­bined
with adequate production credit many
of the benefits attributed to alternate crop­fallow
production disappear. Consequently,
I feel that many Mont.ana farmers would dis­card
or modl!y this system if the crop acre­age
restrictions favoring high yields per
planted acre did not act as a retardant to
change.
Another Important area In this discussion
of method of grain production relates to
qual!ty of environment, especially In regards
to air and water quality. Summer fallowed
surfaces are subject to the onset of wind and
water erosion. Eroded soli and attached ma­terials
become contaminants of both the air
and surface water. Snow Is not effectively
trapped by fallow ground and blows Into
coulees and other areas where spring runoff
may be both wasteful and damaging.
About 80% to 90% of annual precipitation
Is lost during the fallow year and Is not
ava!lable for plant growth In the succeeding
year. Large amounts of water run off the soli
surface. Add! tiona! moisture ls lost by surface
evaporation. When water Intake Is above the
water holding capacity of the sol! there may
be downward movement of water removing
soluble materials, Including plant nutrients,
from the soli. The dissolved materials may
move Into the ground water supply and be­come
containinants. This water may move
laterally and eventually come to the surface,
forining salt spots and ruining valuable land
and vegetation. Some 56,000 acres of wet and
saline land have become unfit to produce
crops In Montana, presumably !rom this sit­uation.
Some 1.8 Inilllon acres of land are col­lecting
moisture and contributing to this
sftuatlon.-Contaminated water not coming to
the surface may remain In the system with
Its potential for human, Industrial, animal
or plant use greatly restricted.
These comments, based on research results
and observations, cast doubt on the desir­ability
of leaving large acreages of land In
fallow, a practice which Is favored by con­serving
acreage base regulations and other
regulations of the farm program.
Very truly yours,
J. A. ASLESON,
Director.
FARM PROGRAM COMPARISON-MONTArlA AND COMPETING WHEAT STATES
1970 conserving 1971 wheat 1971 domestic 1971 set-aside Conserving base
Free acreage Acres to ~ 1ant as
available to percentage of
State 1970 cropland base allotment ( 45 percent) (75 percent) plus set-aside plant 1971 total cropland
Kansas ___________ • ___ ---------------------- ____ 29,807, 000 5, 870, 000 8, 279, 804 3, 725,912 2, 794,434 8, 664, 434 21, 202, 566 70.9
North Dakota __ --------------··----------------- 27, 235 000 6, 412, coo 5, 710,319 2, 569,644 I, 927,233 8, 339,233 18, 895,767 69.3
Oklahoma._. __ .• ------------------------------_ 1!2, 887, 000 I, 804, 000 3, 814, 596 !, 716, 568 I, 287, 426 3, !51, 426 9, 735, 574 75. 5
Montana _______ -------------------------------- 14,902,000 6, 797, 000 Nc brliSka ..•._ __ .. __ • ___ • __ • ____ • _____ • ________ 3, 054,998 I, 374,749 I, 03i , 601 7, 828, 061 7, 073,939 47.4 20 476,000 3, 657, 000 2, 448, 134 1, 101,660 826, 245 4, 483,245 15,992,755 78. 1
Texas __________ --------------------- ___ -------- 35, 152, 000 2, 806, 000 3, 160, 122 I, 422, 055 1, 066.541 3, 93°.541 31,219, 459 88.8
ld•ho ... ··-·----------------------------------- 5, 720, 000 I, 817, 000 922,645 415, 190 311,392 2, 128. 392 3, 591,608 62. 8
South Dakota .. ____ ----------------------------- 17,725,000 3, 364,000 2, 143, 388 964, 525 723.393 4, 087,393 13,637,607 76.9
Colorado ___ .. _ .. -------- __ -------------------- 10,598,000 3, 046,000 2, 003,366 901,515 676, 136 3, 722, 136 6, 875,804 64.8
Minnesota ___________ .----_____ --------- ________ 22,039,000 3, 370,000 778, 045 350, 120 262,590 3, 632, 590 18,406,410 83.5
Footnotes on following page.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 46 , Folder 80, Mansfield Library, University of Montana.
s 18546 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
1 1969 cropland loaure tor Oklahoma, 1970 figure not avaolable.
NOTES
11 Montana had 74.5 percent of its total cropland av01lable, whoch " the average of ots 9
competong Stales, we would have 11,101,990 acres free to plant on 1971 onstead of tho
7,073,939·acre total.
1970 cropland and conserving base figures and 1971 wheat allotments were obtained from
the U s Department ol Agrocutture. Domestoc allotments computed at 45 percent of total allot·
ment because national domestic figure of 19,700,000 acres IS 4l percent ol nat1onal allotment.
19?1 set·aside is . computed at 75 percent although the law spec•f•es 13 300 000 acres as
maximUm set-aside 10 1971 program and that is 67 }i percent of 19,700,000 acres Set as nahonal
domesilc allotment, the USDA Is using 75 percent to allow for noncompliers.
MONTANA STATE Hl)USE
OF REPR.ESENTATfVrS,
H elena, llfont.
Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,
Senate Office Building,
Wasloington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD : I am SOrry I dld
not have a chance to visit with you while
I WIIS In Washington, D .C. Our delegation
wns ''ery short on time and we thank your
staff for the help they gave us while we
w~re there.
I had to leave Washington, DC. early
Wednesday to attend a Health Occupation
Conference In Snit Lake City. I, therefor,
asked the other members or our delegation
to express my thoughts to your staff about
the son conserving acreage problem In Mon­tana
and about the farm blll In general.
I belleve we presented a very good case to
the Department or Agriculture about the
unequal competitive position that Montana
Ia In In relation to other wheat states be­cause
or the Inequities In soli conserving
adjustments. Regardless or whether these
adjustments are right or wrong, In other
states. we wlll not be able to compete with
them. 11 they are able to raise 3 acres or
when t for only 2 that we can raise.
The Dept. personnel dld not dispute the
figures we presented, except !or 6711,% we
used to establtsh the set aside acreage. We
should have w;ed 75 "'. because some farmers
wlll not stay In the program . There!or, the
percentage o! crop land to plant Is less than
we show !or all or the states we used They
also refused to release the figures for the
states, that we dld not have, 110 we could
compnre them to Montana.
I am sure the Dept. or Agrlcul ture wlll
not, administratively, take action to relleve
the situation In Montana, unless pressure
can be brought on them, which I hope you
can do. Regardless or the outcome or farm
leglsle.tlon, we must do something wltb the
80ll conserving acreage In Montana. It we are
to possibly compete economically with other
states.
The farm bill, In general, Is stlll bad ror
All producers because O! the lack o! manda­tory
production controls that the Secretary
or Agriculture must use. This may not be
crucial the coming crop year, because the
winter wheat crop Is seeded and not too
much additional acreage can be seeded In
the spring wheat states. The !ollowlng year,
though, It could lead to the biggest wheat
glut In history. The Secretary Is given tbe
authority to Impose oontrols, but he has
stated be dld not want them and he would
not use them.
I therefor believe. the blll should be de­layed
or killed el'ltlrely until the next ses­sion
or congrese. I ree.llze that passage or
farm legislation Is extremely dlfficul t, but l!
this bill paMes It will be harder to do so In
the future, because farmers will be racing
bankruptcy and taxpayer costs will raise out
or reason.
Dr. Walter Wilcox, or the Legislative Ref­erence
Service, bu estimated that 15 to 20
million additional acreas or wheat produc­tion
will result under the set aside program
and the cost to the government will Increase
I billion dollars. This wUl lead to the big­gest
glut or wheat In history and lend to the
end or all !arm programs.
Senator Mansfield, I know you stated that
the !arm blll would be passed M soon as
Congre!\8 reconvened. I believe you could
reconsider your position because or lnforma­ilon
that we and others have developed dur­Ing
the reces11. Many Montana !armers are
vrry concerned and I am sure that you will
have their full support. The Secretary of
Agriculture has almost unlimited authority,
under the bill. and I can not understand why
he does not announce program decisions be­fore
the bUl passes, so we know where we
are at.
I know that you are as concerned lllbout
this as I, and tloat you wlll do everything you
can to better the situation.
SlncerelJ yours,
JACK GUNDERSON.
U.S. SENATE,
OFFICE OP THE MAJORITY LEADER,
Wa.sl!ington, D.C .. No11ember 14, 1970.
Hon. CLIFFORD M. HARDIN,
Secretary oj Agriculture,
Drpartment of Ag-riculture,
lVashlngton. DC.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The attached state­ment
and figures Indicating Montana's po­sition
In ranking with other grain produc­Ing
stntes have recently been brought to my
attention. I find the content or the en­closures
to be a distinct Indication or bla­tant
and unjust discrimination. affecting not
only Montana's Individual grain producers,
but Montann·s continued econornlc growth
and vlablllty as a major agricultural state.
Montanans must be given an equal op­portunity
In the hnrshly competitive enter­prise
of producing, transporting and mar­keting
gram products. The conserving base
plays a \'Ita' part In the set-aside program
embodied In the present proposed !e.rm leg­Islation
which will be be!ore the Senate In
the Immediate future. As provided, the total
of conserving base acres serves as an topper
llmlt on acres available for crop production.
Within the past three week>!. Individual
farmers, !arm organizations, the Montana
Department or Al(rlculture and the Wfleat
Research and Marketing Committee have
determined the following Information·
Montana's conserving base represented
45.6 percent of Its total cropland, tompared
to an average or 19.8 percent !or competing
states, and approximately 22 percent !or the
nation.
In the five year history or conserving bases,
competing states have had downward ad­justments
averaging 26.5 percent In such
acreage, but Montana bas had only 11 4
percent reduction.
As the new farm program couples con­serving
base with a compulsory set-aside,
competing states wlll have an average or 75
percent or their total cropland available to
plant to wheat (or other crops), while Mon­tana
will be II ml ted to 48 percent.
I think It Imperative that It be clearly
understood that Montanans are not seeking
a competlth·e advantage. What they are ask­Ing
Is an equal opportunlty to utilize Mon­tana's
land resources. At best, econornlcally
feasible crops are limited. Montana must re­main
competitive In wheat terms 1r the
State's agrlcult11re and ecouomy are to grow
and prosper.
It would be my hope that I need not elabo­rate
at this time upon the absolute necessity
for a firm and forthright comonltment !rom
the Department or Agriculture that an equi­table
adjustment will be made, bringing
Montana Into line with other states. I would
sincerely appreciate being appra.lsed or your
d ecision wlthln the next 48 to 72 hours. I am,
or course, appreciative or your attention to
this matter and regret that conditions are
such as to require a respon'e wlthln the In­dicated
time period.
Thanking you, a.nd With best personal
wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
MIKE MANSFIELD,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
GENERAL COMMENTS RELEVANT TO AtTACHED
DATA ON CONSERVING BASE-FARM PRO­GRAM
Agriculture's Importance to Montana's
economy needs no verlfica.tlon and wheat In­come
In relation to over-all agricultural
econornlcs Is also well understood.
Wba.t seems to esca.pe us frequently In
Montana Is the need to protect ourselves as a
wheat state In the harshly competitive game
or producing, transporting and ma.rketlng
wheat In rela.tlon to other states produolng
similar classes or wheat.
The accompanying sta.tlstlcal ln!ormatlon
on conserving bases and projected effect or
the new national !arm legislation tell a
gloomy story or Montana's competitive
status.
Farmers and !arm organizations are loosely
knit and lack the expertise and resources on
a continuing basts to keep our state as a
whole ln the proper competitive perspective.
Our rellanoo then- properly or Improper­ly-
falls upon the governmental, seml-gov­ernmental
and quasi-governmental bodies
and the a.grlcultural establishment at Mon­tana
State University to take stock or the
over-all picture !or wheat growers a.nd keep
Montana In the first rank competitively.
Montana's wheat fanners find themselves
In dire need of that type or guidance, assist­ance
and direction In the problems herem
revealed regarding conserving bases and the
new !arm program.
Severa.! significant aspects or this develop­ment
are not related In the accompanying
statistical tables:
( 1) A!ter the Inequities In conserving
bases were brought to public attention In late
1969 and early 1970 by the Montana Grain
Growers Aasoclatlon, a seven-county group at
Chester, and others a<:ross the state, Indica­tion
was given by the U.S. Dept. or Agricul­ture
that an adjustment or 12 per cent, or
850,000 acres, wu possible; the Montana
ASCS later In making the adjustment Indi­cated
It would be 7 per cent, or 500,000 acres;
but the actual adjustment (never reported
publicly) was 5 per cent, or 366,600 acres!
Also, while It was Indicated this was an
Individual state adjustment to correct an
acknowledged Inequity In Montana, Kansas
received a 9 per cent adjustment (576,300
acres ) and Colorado received an 18 per cent
adjustment (679,800 acres). These adjust­ments
were made despite the !act Montana's
conserving base at that time was 49 per cent
of Its cropland compared to 22 per cent !or
Kansas and 36 per cent for Colorado.
(2) The problems or blowing top-soil and
alkalinity In connection with double-sum­mer!
allow are widely known, yet under the
projected terms or the new !arm program
Montana will have 547,912 acres In the dou­ble-
summer!allow category In 1971 and even
more In 1972 and 1073 when setaslde acreages
Increase.
The terms or the new !arm program tend
to lock Montana In as a summer !allow state,
writing a farming practice Into law, so to
speak. This comes at a time when many or
our farmers are getting away from tbe prac­tice,
plant and soli scientists are Increasingly
advis ing against It, and the trend Is definitely
away from summerfallow rather than hard
and !ast acceptance. Montana's farmers at.
least deserve the !arm program opportunity
to make their own choice.
(3). The only "saving" !actor, l! there Is
one, In the new !arm program !or Montana
growers lies In the !act that winter wheat
growers are limited to the planting deter-
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 46 , Folder 80, Mansfield Library, University of Montana.
'
November 19, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
J mlnatlons they already have made for next
year, while spring wheat states, under set ­aside,
will be able to Increase acreage In vast
amounts the coming crop year (Montana,
North and South Dakota, Minnesota).
(4) Perhaps any adjustments in conserv­Ing
bases should be mandatory with each
grower being notified of the &ange In his
acreage rather than basing such changes on
Individual farmer requests. It would appear
such an approach would result In greater
equity among the farmers within a commu­nity,
county, and state.
In summary, what the Montana grain
grower wants and Is requesting Is not an ad­vantage
but an equal opportunity to sustain
his livelihood as a producer the same as his
colleagues In the ot her wheat states.
The choices In Montana are not great-­either
our growers stay competitive In wheat
and barley or they face an extremely dhmal
future.
It Is Interesting to note, In that regard,
that the new farm program permits (with
the Secretary's authorization) the growing
of wheat to retain cotton acreage history-Is
there equity In therefore permitting Mon­tanans
to grow cotton to retain wheat his­tory
when the glut comes and that crop Is
no longer saleable?
CONSERVING OASE AND CROPLAND RATIOS, A COMPARISON 1966- 70-MONTANA AND COMPETING WHEAT STATES
Conserving bases 1970 conserving Conserving base change 1966- 70
Adjustment
downward in
State 1966 1969 1970 Cropland 1970
base as percent
of cropland Acres Percent
last 5 years
(percent)
Kansas ___ -- --- ---- -- ------ - ---- - - - - ---- - - - --- - - 7, 486. 4 6, 446. 3 5. 870 29,867 19.6 1, 616. 4 78.4 21.6
North Dakota ___ ------ ___ - -----_·-----·--------- 7, 982. 4 6, 643. 4 6, 412 27,235 23.5 I , 570.4 80.3 19.7
Oklahoma ___ . ___ __ ----· ---- ---. _____ __ .. ____ ___ 2, 532. 0 I, 891.9 I , 864 I 12, 887 14. 0 668. 0 73.6 26.4
Montana _----- - ____ __ __ ____ ____ -- ------ -- - _____ 7, 673. 5 7, 163. 6 6. 797 14. 902 45.6 876.5 88.6 11.4
Nebraska ..... _ •.• ___ • •••••• _____ ._ ..... --- •• - - 4, 527.4 3, 952. 0 3, 657 20, 476 17.9 870.4 80. 8 19.2
Texas __ _______ _ -- ------ - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - -- - ----- 4, 663. 7 2, 869. 0 2, 866 35. 152 8. 2 I , 797. 7 61.5 38.5
Idaho ......... __ · · -------- --------------------- 2, 490.3 I , 893. 8 I, 817 5, 720 31.8 673. 3 73.0 27.0
South Oakola_. _ ••• __ _______ ____ __ _______ • _. _ ... 4,155. 0 3, 397. 7 3, 364 17, 725 19. 0 791.0 81.0 19. 0
Colorado __ • ____ ____ • __________ .. ___ ____ __ .. __ • 4, 592.3 3, 725. 8 3, 046 10. 598 28.7 ), 546.3 66.3 33.7
Minnesota. _______ __ __ _____ ___ __ ____ _ - -- _- -- . - --- 4, 456.9 3, 237.6 3, 370 22, 039 !5. 3 I , 086.9 75.6 24.4
11969 cropland figure for Oklahoma, 1970 figure not available.
NOTES
If Montana had 19.8 percent of its total cropland in conserving base, which is the average of
Its 9 competine States, we would have 2,950,596 acres in conserving base instead of 6,797,000
acres..
If Montana had received the 25.5 percent downward adjustment in conserving base, which has
been the average of its 9 competing States, we would have received a 1,957,253-acre adjustment
in the last 5 years instead of 876,500 acres. Montana's conserving base then wou ld be 5,718,247
acres Tnstead of 6,797,000 acres. The conserving base in Montana, with such an adjustment, still
would be 38 percent of the total crcptand -·highest of all the 10 wheat States in this comparison
and double the average of the other 9.
FARM PROGRAM COMPARISON- MONTANA AND COMPETING WHEAT STATES
State
1970 conserving
1970 cropland base
1971 wheat 1971 domestic 1971 set-acide Conserving base
allotment (45 percent) (67;o percent) plus set-aside
Free acreage Acres to plant as
a~i~~tbl~i~ fo~~~~~bap~:~J
Kansas _ ------------------------------------- - - 29, 867, 000 5, 870, 000 8, 279, 804 3, 725,912 2, 514, 991 8, 384,991 21,482,009 72.0
North Dakota __________________________ ____ ... _ 27,235, 000 6, 412,000 5, 710, 319 2, 569, 644 I, 734, 510 8, 146, 510 19, 088, 490 70.0
Oklahoma .. _____ _ • ___ __ •• _____ _____ _____ - · ---_. I 12,887,000 I, 864, 000 3. 814, 596 I, 716, 568 1,158, 683 3, 022,683 9, 864, 317 76. 5
Montana _______ J ____ _______ ------ ______ ---- _ _ _ _ 14,902, 000 6, 797,000 3, 054,998 I, 374, 749 927, 956 7, 724,956 7, 177, 044 48. 0
Nebraska ______ ...... ---··---------. - .--------.- 20, 476, 000 3, 657, 000 2, 448, 134 1, 101,660 743, 621 4, 400,621 16, 075, 379 Texas •.• _. ____ ___ ______ ______ _______ _______ ____ 78. 5 35, 152, 000 2, 866, 000 3, 160, 122 I, 422, 055 959, 887 3, 825, 887 31,326, 113 89. 0
Idaho ___ __ . __ __ ___ · - - _--- ---- ___ • ___ __ • ___ • ____ 5, 720, 000 I, 817, 000 922, 645 415, 190 280. 253 2, 097, 253 3, 622, 747 63.0
South Dakota. __ _______________ • ______ - --------- 17, 725,000 3, 364, 000 2. 143, 388 964, 525 651, 054 4, 015, 054 13, 709, 946 77.0
Colorado ____ ••• _ ... ____ •• __ .. _ ....... ----- .... 10, 598, 000 3. 046, 000 2, 003, 366 901, 515 608. 523 3, 654, 523 6, 943. 477 65.5
tt1innesota_. _____ . ________ _____ __________ ____ - - - 22, 039, 000 3,370, 000 778, 045 350, 120 236, 331 3, 606, 331 18, 432,669 83.5
1\969 cropland figure for Oklahoma, 1970 figure not available.
NOTES
1970 cropland and conserving base figures and 1971 wheat allotments were obta ined from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Domestic allotments computed at 45 percent Qf total allotment
because national domestic figure oll9,700,000 acres is 45 percent of national allotmen t.
197~ se~- aside is computed at 67~ percent because law specifies 13,300,000 acres as maximum
set-as1de 1n 1971 program and that JS 67,!.~ percent of 19,7(0,000 acres set as national domest1c
allotment
If Montana had 75 percent of its total cropland ava ilable. which Is the average of its 9 com peting
States, we would have 11,176,500 acres free to plant in 1971 instead of the 7,177,044 acre total.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
OFFICE 01-'"' THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D .C., November 18, 1970.
Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: This is In re­sponse
to your letter of November 14 to­gether
with enclosures, regarding the con­serving
bases e<;tabllshed for Montana farms.
During 1970, we have reduced conserving
bases on Montana farms by a total of 370,000
acres.
The proposed farm bill Includes a provision
which should be o! substantial benefit to
Montana farmers. Under the provision which
limits the set-aside requirement on farms
having 55% of the cropland devoted to sum­mer
fall()W, Montana farmers would benefit
by up 'to an estimated 250,000 acres.
Over the past several months we have re­viewed
administrative regulations under
prior programs with regard to establishing
and adjusting. farm conserving bases. As a
resu-lt of this review, we could not find that
such administrative regulations were dis­criminatory
with regard to any State or any
county. The provision for adjustment of
farm conserving bases under past programs
provided a uniform authority to all county
committees for making adjustments In farm
conserving base under a specified set of
guidelines. Every effort was made by our na­tional
and field offices to assure uniform In­terpretation
of the adjustment provisions.
A comparison of the ratio of conserving
base to cropland of one State to another
would not appear to be valid because of the
varied types of farming operations which are
normally carried out In widely separated as
well as In adjoining States due to varying
climatic and rainfall conditions. Even adjoin­ing
counties cannot be compared equitably
because of varying types of soil and topog­raphy.
Conservlng ba£cs were Initially estab­lished
on an his torical basis. This history re­flected
the varied farming operations being
followed throughout the nation. It would ap­pear
to be Inequitable to provide for a blan­ket
downward adjustment In the conserving
bases for all farms In the State of Montana,
or any State without regard to the farming
operations being followed by each Individual
producer. Not only would this be Inequitable
to producers In other States, but In the event
that new farm legislation Is enacted into
law such action on our part would appear to
be Inconsistent with the Intent of Congress
and the object ives of the farm bill.
As soon as the farm bill Is enacted Into
law, we plan on Issuing administrative regu­lations
which would continue the authority
to make adjustments In conserving bases oft
Individual farms.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our
attention and for giving us the opportunity
to comment on the conserving base pro­vision
of past and future program.
Sincerely,
CLIFFORD M. HARDIN,
Secretary.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 46 , Folder 80, Mansfield Library, University of Montana.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

For additional information about the collections held by the Archives and Special Collections at the University of Montana--Missoula, please visit the web site: http://www.lib.umt.edu/asc. To suggest a keyword or share what you might know about this item, email: library.archives@umontana.edu.

Transcript

1 November 19, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE S 1S545
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, be­cause
of the fact that a time limitation
has been agreed to I will keep my re­marks
short.
Soon after the election, Jim Stephens
of Dutton, Mont., Bob Brastrup of Great
Falls, Charles Smith, of Chester, Joe A.
Renders, of Great Falls, Jack Gunderson,
of Power Montana and others, came back
to Washington seeking to find a solu­tion
for the adjustment to Montana's
conservancy base In agriculture--that Is
nonplanted acres. The Governor of Mon­tana
also wrote to me as well as the
State Department of Agriculture and
many Interested Montana farmers and
ranchers.
While here In Washington, these gen­tlemen
met with officials at the Depart­ment
of Agriculture but received no sat­isfaction
as a result. It was hoped that
some assurances would be obtainable
prior to the vote on the conference re­port,
but this could not be given to the
above named Montanans who sought
such assurances.
The pending bill, in their judgment,
provides no production restraints. It is
thought that within the conference re­port
is the possibility of a staggering
overproduction of grain crops In the next
3 or 4 years. The present conservancy
base adjustment for all other Western
States except Montana will be one of the
principal contributors to this problem.
I have also received a letter from an
old friend, Jim Stephens, who reiterated
the group's desire to get the Montana
grain farmers on an equitable basis in
"this business of producing grain."
I am also in receipt of a letter from
Mr. Robert Brastrup, executive secre­tary
of the Montana Wheat Research &
Marketing Committee and I ask unani­mous
consent that it and a reply from
J . A. Asleson be incorporated at this
point in the RECORD and also a letter from
the honorable Jack Gunderson as well as
a letter which I sent to Secretary of Agri­culture,
Clifford M. Hardin on November
14 along with some enclosures and the
reply I received from Mr. Hardin on No­vember
18, 1970.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MONTANA WHEAT RESEARCH &
MARKETING COMMITTEE,
Great Falls, Mont., November 16, 1970.
Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: Enclosed Is a
statistical report that ts a correction ot the
ortgtnal material which you received con­cerning
conserving base acres. You will nottce
that the percentages In the right hand
column are changed slightly. Thts Is a down­ward
adjustment In most cases due to our
access to correct figures.
Also enclosed Is a letter !rom the Director
of the Agricultural Experiment Station at
MSU, Dr. J. A. Asleson. He Indicates that the
Experiment Station Is recognizing the alter­nate
crop fallow method of production may
not be the best for Montana In the long run.
we are sorry we did not have this Informa­tion
when we visited with you last week.
Thank you for your efforts. We are sure
that they will show results.
Yours very truly,
RoBERT BRASTRUP • .
Executive Secretary.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
Bozeman, Mont., November 6, 1970.
Mr. ROBERT BRASTRuP,
Executive Secretary.
Research and Marketing Committee,
Great Falls, Mont.
DEAR BoB: A question has been raised as
to the need for a downward adjustment of
Montana's conserving acreage base. The
method o! alternate crop-fallow production
widely used In Montana results In about
hal! of the gratn land not being cropped
each year. There Is some feeling that there
Is no alternative to the crop-fallow system,
therefore the high conocrving base creates no
real hardship. I should !Ike to reply to this
argument using research results of the Mon­tana
AgrtcuHural Experiment Station.
Long-term research has shown that yields
tor two years from contlnuou•ly cropped
land are usually 25-75% greater than the
single yield In two years from alternate crop­fallow
land. Cost of producllon could be
reduced by adopting systems of continuous
or Intermittent cropping In !leu of the crop­fallow
system In much of Montana, especially
areas having over 14 Inches of precipitation,
or with highly desirable precipitation pat­terns.
Research has provided Improved weed con­trol,
production practices, fert!lizer usage
and Improved varieties. When these are com­bined
with adequate production credit many
of the benefits attributed to alternate crop­fallow
production disappear. Consequently,
I feel that many Mont.ana farmers would dis­card
or modl!y this system if the crop acre­age
restrictions favoring high yields per
planted acre did not act as a retardant to
change.
Another Important area In this discussion
of method of grain production relates to
qual!ty of environment, especially In regards
to air and water quality. Summer fallowed
surfaces are subject to the onset of wind and
water erosion. Eroded soli and attached ma­terials
become contaminants of both the air
and surface water. Snow Is not effectively
trapped by fallow ground and blows Into
coulees and other areas where spring runoff
may be both wasteful and damaging.
About 80% to 90% of annual precipitation
Is lost during the fallow year and Is not
ava!lable for plant growth In the succeeding
year. Large amounts of water run off the soli
surface. Add! tiona! moisture ls lost by surface
evaporation. When water Intake Is above the
water holding capacity of the sol! there may
be downward movement of water removing
soluble materials, Including plant nutrients,
from the soli. The dissolved materials may
move Into the ground water supply and be­come
containinants. This water may move
laterally and eventually come to the surface,
forining salt spots and ruining valuable land
and vegetation. Some 56,000 acres of wet and
saline land have become unfit to produce
crops In Montana, presumably !rom this sit­uation.
Some 1.8 Inilllon acres of land are col­lecting
moisture and contributing to this
sftuatlon.-Contaminated water not coming to
the surface may remain In the system with
Its potential for human, Industrial, animal
or plant use greatly restricted.
These comments, based on research results
and observations, cast doubt on the desir­ability
of leaving large acreages of land In
fallow, a practice which Is favored by con­serving
acreage base regulations and other
regulations of the farm program.
Very truly yours,
J. A. ASLESON,
Director.
FARM PROGRAM COMPARISON-MONTArlA AND COMPETING WHEAT STATES
1970 conserving 1971 wheat 1971 domestic 1971 set-aside Conserving base
Free acreage Acres to ~ 1ant as
available to percentage of
State 1970 cropland base allotment ( 45 percent) (75 percent) plus set-aside plant 1971 total cropland
Kansas ___________ • ___ ---------------------- ____ 29,807, 000 5, 870, 000 8, 279, 804 3, 725,912 2, 794,434 8, 664, 434 21, 202, 566 70.9
North Dakota __ --------------··----------------- 27, 235 000 6, 412, coo 5, 710,319 2, 569,644 I, 927,233 8, 339,233 18, 895,767 69.3
Oklahoma._. __ .• ------------------------------_ 1!2, 887, 000 I, 804, 000 3, 814, 596 !, 716, 568 I, 287, 426 3, !51, 426 9, 735, 574 75. 5
Montana _______ -------------------------------- 14,902,000 6, 797, 000 Nc brliSka ..•._ __ .. __ • ___ • __ • ____ • _____ • ________ 3, 054,998 I, 374,749 I, 03i , 601 7, 828, 061 7, 073,939 47.4 20 476,000 3, 657, 000 2, 448, 134 1, 101,660 826, 245 4, 483,245 15,992,755 78. 1
Texas __________ --------------------- ___ -------- 35, 152, 000 2, 806, 000 3, 160, 122 I, 422, 055 1, 066.541 3, 93°.541 31,219, 459 88.8
ld•ho ... ··-·----------------------------------- 5, 720, 000 I, 817, 000 922,645 415, 190 311,392 2, 128. 392 3, 591,608 62. 8
South Dakota .. ____ ----------------------------- 17,725,000 3, 364,000 2, 143, 388 964, 525 723.393 4, 087,393 13,637,607 76.9
Colorado ___ .. _ .. -------- __ -------------------- 10,598,000 3, 046,000 2, 003,366 901,515 676, 136 3, 722, 136 6, 875,804 64.8
Minnesota ___________ .----_____ --------- ________ 22,039,000 3, 370,000 778, 045 350, 120 262,590 3, 632, 590 18,406,410 83.5
Footnotes on following page.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 46 , Folder 80, Mansfield Library, University of Montana.
s 18546 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
1 1969 cropland loaure tor Oklahoma, 1970 figure not avaolable.
NOTES
11 Montana had 74.5 percent of its total cropland av01lable, whoch " the average of ots 9
competong Stales, we would have 11,101,990 acres free to plant on 1971 onstead of tho
7,073,939·acre total.
1970 cropland and conserving base figures and 1971 wheat allotments were obtained from
the U s Department ol Agrocutture. Domestoc allotments computed at 45 percent of total allot·
ment because national domestic figure of 19,700,000 acres IS 4l percent ol nat1onal allotment.
19?1 set·aside is . computed at 75 percent although the law spec•f•es 13 300 000 acres as
maximUm set-aside 10 1971 program and that is 67 }i percent of 19,700,000 acres Set as nahonal
domesilc allotment, the USDA Is using 75 percent to allow for noncompliers.
MONTANA STATE Hl)USE
OF REPR.ESENTATfVrS,
H elena, llfont.
Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,
Senate Office Building,
Wasloington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD : I am SOrry I dld
not have a chance to visit with you while
I WIIS In Washington, D .C. Our delegation
wns ''ery short on time and we thank your
staff for the help they gave us while we
w~re there.
I had to leave Washington, DC. early
Wednesday to attend a Health Occupation
Conference In Snit Lake City. I, therefor,
asked the other members or our delegation
to express my thoughts to your staff about
the son conserving acreage problem In Mon­tana
and about the farm blll In general.
I belleve we presented a very good case to
the Department or Agriculture about the
unequal competitive position that Montana
Ia In In relation to other wheat states be­cause
or the Inequities In soli conserving
adjustments. Regardless or whether these
adjustments are right or wrong, In other
states. we wlll not be able to compete with
them. 11 they are able to raise 3 acres or
when t for only 2 that we can raise.
The Dept. personnel dld not dispute the
figures we presented, except !or 6711,% we
used to establtsh the set aside acreage. We
should have w;ed 75 "'. because some farmers
wlll not stay In the program . There!or, the
percentage o! crop land to plant Is less than
we show !or all or the states we used They
also refused to release the figures for the
states, that we dld not have, 110 we could
compnre them to Montana.
I am sure the Dept. or Agrlcul ture wlll
not, administratively, take action to relleve
the situation In Montana, unless pressure
can be brought on them, which I hope you
can do. Regardless or the outcome or farm
leglsle.tlon, we must do something wltb the
80ll conserving acreage In Montana. It we are
to possibly compete economically with other
states.
The farm bill, In general, Is stlll bad ror
All producers because O! the lack o! manda­tory
production controls that the Secretary
or Agriculture must use. This may not be
crucial the coming crop year, because the
winter wheat crop Is seeded and not too
much additional acreage can be seeded In
the spring wheat states. The !ollowlng year,
though, It could lead to the biggest wheat
glut In history. The Secretary Is given tbe
authority to Impose oontrols, but he has
stated be dld not want them and he would
not use them.
I therefor believe. the blll should be de­layed
or killed el'ltlrely until the next ses­sion
or congrese. I ree.llze that passage or
farm legislation Is extremely dlfficul t, but l!
this bill paMes It will be harder to do so In
the future, because farmers will be racing
bankruptcy and taxpayer costs will raise out
or reason.
Dr. Walter Wilcox, or the Legislative Ref­erence
Service, bu estimated that 15 to 20
million additional acreas or wheat produc­tion
will result under the set aside program
and the cost to the government will Increase
I billion dollars. This wUl lead to the big­gest
glut or wheat In history and lend to the
end or all !arm programs.
Senator Mansfield, I know you stated that
the !arm blll would be passed M soon as
Congre!\8 reconvened. I believe you could
reconsider your position because or lnforma­ilon
that we and others have developed dur­Ing
the reces11. Many Montana !armers are
vrry concerned and I am sure that you will
have their full support. The Secretary of
Agriculture has almost unlimited authority,
under the bill. and I can not understand why
he does not announce program decisions be­fore
the bUl passes, so we know where we
are at.
I know that you are as concerned lllbout
this as I, and tloat you wlll do everything you
can to better the situation.
SlncerelJ yours,
JACK GUNDERSON.
U.S. SENATE,
OFFICE OP THE MAJORITY LEADER,
Wa.sl!ington, D.C .. No11ember 14, 1970.
Hon. CLIFFORD M. HARDIN,
Secretary oj Agriculture,
Drpartment of Ag-riculture,
lVashlngton. DC.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The attached state­ment
and figures Indicating Montana's po­sition
In ranking with other grain produc­Ing
stntes have recently been brought to my
attention. I find the content or the en­closures
to be a distinct Indication or bla­tant
and unjust discrimination. affecting not
only Montana's Individual grain producers,
but Montann·s continued econornlc growth
and vlablllty as a major agricultural state.
Montanans must be given an equal op­portunity
In the hnrshly competitive enter­prise
of producing, transporting and mar­keting
gram products. The conserving base
plays a \'Ita' part In the set-aside program
embodied In the present proposed !e.rm leg­Islation
which will be be!ore the Senate In
the Immediate future. As provided, the total
of conserving base acres serves as an topper
llmlt on acres available for crop production.
Within the past three week>!. Individual
farmers, !arm organizations, the Montana
Department or Al(rlculture and the Wfleat
Research and Marketing Committee have
determined the following Information·
Montana's conserving base represented
45.6 percent of Its total cropland, tompared
to an average or 19.8 percent !or competing
states, and approximately 22 percent !or the
nation.
In the five year history or conserving bases,
competing states have had downward ad­justments
averaging 26.5 percent In such
acreage, but Montana bas had only 11 4
percent reduction.
As the new farm program couples con­serving
base with a compulsory set-aside,
competing states wlll have an average or 75
percent or their total cropland available to
plant to wheat (or other crops), while Mon­tana
will be II ml ted to 48 percent.
I think It Imperative that It be clearly
understood that Montanans are not seeking
a competlth·e advantage. What they are ask­Ing
Is an equal opportunlty to utilize Mon­tana's
land resources. At best, econornlcally
feasible crops are limited. Montana must re­main
competitive In wheat terms 1r the
State's agrlcult11re and ecouomy are to grow
and prosper.
It would be my hope that I need not elabo­rate
at this time upon the absolute necessity
for a firm and forthright comonltment !rom
the Department or Agriculture that an equi­table
adjustment will be made, bringing
Montana Into line with other states. I would
sincerely appreciate being appra.lsed or your
d ecision wlthln the next 48 to 72 hours. I am,
or course, appreciative or your attention to
this matter and regret that conditions are
such as to require a respon'e wlthln the In­dicated
time period.
Thanking you, a.nd With best personal
wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
MIKE MANSFIELD,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
GENERAL COMMENTS RELEVANT TO AtTACHED
DATA ON CONSERVING BASE-FARM PRO­GRAM
Agriculture's Importance to Montana's
economy needs no verlfica.tlon and wheat In­come
In relation to over-all agricultural
econornlcs Is also well understood.
Wba.t seems to esca.pe us frequently In
Montana Is the need to protect ourselves as a
wheat state In the harshly competitive game
or producing, transporting and ma.rketlng
wheat In rela.tlon to other states produolng
similar classes or wheat.
The accompanying sta.tlstlcal ln!ormatlon
on conserving bases and projected effect or
the new national !arm legislation tell a
gloomy story or Montana's competitive
status.
Farmers and !arm organizations are loosely
knit and lack the expertise and resources on
a continuing basts to keep our state as a
whole ln the proper competitive perspective.
Our rellanoo then- properly or Improper­ly-
falls upon the governmental, seml-gov­ernmental
and quasi-governmental bodies
and the a.grlcultural establishment at Mon­tana
State University to take stock or the
over-all picture !or wheat growers a.nd keep
Montana In the first rank competitively.
Montana's wheat fanners find themselves
In dire need of that type or guidance, assist­ance
and direction In the problems herem
revealed regarding conserving bases and the
new !arm program.
Severa.! significant aspects or this develop­ment
are not related In the accompanying
statistical tables:
( 1) A!ter the Inequities In conserving
bases were brought to public attention In late
1969 and early 1970 by the Montana Grain
Growers Aasoclatlon, a seven-county group at
Chester, and others a